Week One
Assignment--Part One: After reviewing the information from this week’s lecture and reading, there are several major events that comprise the history of Texas school finance. One of the early events that should be identified as one of the top three occurred in 1836 when Texas declared its independence from Mexico. One of the main reasons that the declaration of independence happened was attributed to the fact that no system of public education had been established. It is clear to see that this commitment to providing students with a free public education initially laid the groundwork for systems that still exist today. This action necessitated public officials to begin the process of establishing some sort of school finance system to support the commitment to public education. The second historical event that should be noted happened in 1845 when Texas officially became a state, hence developing a state constitution that established free schools and a state tax to support funding education. This action can be considered as one of the top three because it was the first official financial move to begin the process in which the state government would contribute funding to the school system. The third historical event that impacted school finance is the passing of the Gilmer-Aiken Laws in 1949. The Gilmer-Aiken Laws established a formal system for how the state would supplement local taxes to fund public schools. Additionally, the Gilmer-Aiken Laws set up the structure for the State Board of Education and Commissioner of Education, which continue to be two major components of the modern day public education system.
Part Two: There are several issues impacting school finance and the state formula. As we learned in the lecture and readings from this week, the formula is designed to level the playing field for students across the state of Texas; however, the reality of this ideal is quite complicated. The most important issues that impact the state formula are property values and tax collection, average daily attendance and weighted average daily attendance (ADA and WADA), and special instructional program adjustments. The basic allotment is adjusted based on property values which vary from district to district. ADA and WADA is a critical component to the school finance formula. For this reason, schools have always strived to achieve high attendance percentages. This can become a influential factor for districts when they are working with a demographic group that struggles to maintain high attendance rates. Essentially, every time a student is absent from the classroom, the district is losing money. Demographics are also the key factor in how special instructional program adjustments impact school finance. Districts with higher numbers of at risk, special education, bilingual, CATE, and GT students will certainly benefit from increased funding.
Part Three:
Equality—Every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program. Examples: 1) All districts must fund courses to meet reading, math, science and social studies curriculum requirements based on TEKS. 2) All districts must meet state requirements to fund and provide instruction for the minimum number of days required for instruction (i.e.: 177 day requirement). Equity—The system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Examples: 1) Compensatory funds are an example of equity funding because they provide districts with additional funds for students who are economically disadvantaged. 2.) Bilingual allocations are another example of equity funding so that districts that are required to meet the needs of LEP students have the funding necessary to provide quality instruction for students that are learning in a language other than English. Adequacy—The school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Examples: 1) Equalizing teacher salaries 2.) Providing funding when textbook costs have increased Reflection—Examining the differences between these terms has been very thought provoking. So many times in education you will hear people say, “that’s not fair.” As educators, we really have to stop and think about “fair” in terms of equality, equity, and adequacy. I have heard the phrase, “what is fair isn’t always equal, and what is equal isn’t always fair.” This quote came to mind as we discussed these terms and is helpful in analyzing the true purpose of school finance.
Part 4--District plan comparison: Reflection: The Austin I.S.D. District Improvement Plan was compared to the district improvement plan for Sheldon I.S.D. The two district improvement plan had a few similarities; however, it was overwhelmingly obvious that there were more differences apparent. The basic structure for each district’s plan was different, which made the act of comparing the two plans a bit challenging. Honestly, I have never seen a district plan similar to the one reviewed for Austin I.S.D. The formatting very different than what I am accustomed to working with.
Assignment--Part One:
After reviewing the information from this week’s lecture and reading, there are several major events that comprise the history of Texas school finance. One of the early events that should be identified as one of the top three occurred in 1836 when Texas declared its independence from Mexico. One of the main reasons that the declaration of independence happened was attributed to the fact that no system of public education had been established. It is clear to see that this commitment to providing students with a free public education initially laid the groundwork for systems that still exist today. This action necessitated public officials to begin the process of establishing some sort of school finance system to support the commitment to public education. The second historical event that should be noted happened in 1845 when Texas officially became a state, hence developing a state constitution that established free schools and a state tax to support funding education. This action can be considered as one of the top three because it was the first official financial move to begin the process in which the state government would contribute funding to the school system. The third historical event that impacted school finance is the passing of the Gilmer-Aiken Laws in 1949. The Gilmer-Aiken Laws established a formal system for how the state would supplement local taxes to fund public schools. Additionally, the Gilmer-Aiken Laws set up the structure for the State Board of Education and Commissioner of Education, which continue to be two major components of the modern day public education system.
Part Two:
There are several issues impacting school finance and the state formula. As we learned in the lecture and readings from this week, the formula is designed to level the playing field for students across the state of Texas; however, the reality of this ideal is quite complicated. The most important issues that impact the state formula are property values and tax collection, average daily attendance and weighted average daily attendance (ADA and WADA), and special instructional program adjustments. The basic allotment is adjusted based on property values which vary from district to district. ADA and WADA is a critical component to the school finance formula. For this reason, schools have always strived to achieve high attendance percentages. This can become a influential factor for districts when they are working with a demographic group that struggles to maintain high attendance rates. Essentially, every time a student is absent from the classroom, the district is losing money. Demographics are also the key factor in how special instructional program adjustments impact school finance. Districts with higher numbers of at risk, special education, bilingual, CATE, and GT students will certainly benefit from increased funding.
Part Three:
Equality—Every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program. Examples: 1) All districts must fund courses to meet reading, math, science and social studies curriculum requirements based on TEKS. 2) All districts must meet state requirements to fund and provide instruction for the minimum number of days required for instruction (i.e.: 177 day requirement).
Equity—The system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals. Examples: 1) Compensatory funds are an example of equity funding because they provide districts with additional funds for students who are economically disadvantaged. 2.) Bilingual allocations are another example of equity funding so that districts that are required to meet the needs of LEP students have the funding necessary to provide quality instruction for students that are learning in a language other than English.
Adequacy—The school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards. Examples: 1) Equalizing teacher salaries 2.) Providing funding when textbook costs have increased
Reflection—Examining the differences between these terms has been very thought provoking. So many times in education you will hear people say, “that’s not fair.” As educators, we really have to stop and think about “fair” in terms of equality, equity, and adequacy. I have heard the phrase, “what is fair isn’t always equal, and what is equal isn’t always fair.” This quote came to mind as we discussed these terms and is helpful in analyzing the true purpose of school finance.
Part 4--District plan comparison:
Reflection:
The Austin I.S.D. District Improvement Plan was compared to the district improvement plan for Sheldon I.S.D. The two district improvement plan had a few similarities; however, it was overwhelmingly obvious that there were more differences apparent. The basic structure for each district’s plan was different, which made the act of comparing the two plans a bit challenging. Honestly, I have never seen a district plan similar to the one reviewed for Austin I.S.D. The formatting very different than what I am accustomed to working with.